Democratic Member Seeks To Disbar Two Dozen Lawyers Challenging Election Results

We have been discussing the campaign of harassment and threats against Republican lawyers to get them to drop election challenges. New Jersey Democratic Rep. Bill Pascrell expanded that campaign this week with a malicious and frivolous demand for New York and other states to disbar roughly two dozen lawyers for representing Trump, the Republican party, or the Trump campaign in the litigation.  While Democratic members and the media discuss attacks on democracy and the rule of law, they appear to have little problem with campaigns to threaten and harass both lawyers and legislators for raising questions about the election.

 

Such calls have become common place. Indeed, during the impeachment trial of President Trump, North Carolina Law Professor Michael Gerhardt predicted that the entire Trump legal team would be disbarred after their representation of the President.

Many of us criticized Rudy Giuliani for his performance in this litigation, particularly the controversial press conference held last week. Indeed, I have previously criticized Giuliani for his public comments and allegations. However, Pascrell wants Giuliani disbarred specifically for filing these legal actions as well as a host of other lawyers.

Pascrell wrote to the Grievance Committee for three New York Judicial Districts that “Mr. Giuliani has participated in the filing of a series of absurd lawsuits seeking to overturn the will of the voters … and has caused irreversible damage to the public trust in the fair administration of our elections.” Pascrell claimed that filing the cases constitutes “clear” evident that he was violating the state’s Rules of Professional Misconduct that prohibit “dishonesty, fraud, deceit” and “misrepresentations.”

The letters to various state bar associations seems to go out of its way to self-identify as a vicious attack on any lawyers who do not yield to demands that they remove themselves from any election challenges:

“The pattern of behavior by these individuals to effectuate Mr. Trump’s sinister arson is a danger not just to our legal system but is also unprecedented in our national life. In carrying out that perversion, they have clearly violated the … Rules of Professional Conduct they swore to uphold and should face the severest sanction your body can mete out: revocation of their law licensures. The holding of a law license is a sacred responsibility. You have an opportunity here to make a powerful statement in support of our democracy and deter future charlatans and miscreants from warping our legal and political
systems for their own profit.”

As I have previously discussed, it is a familiar campaign that is unfolding without objections from most media figures, lawyers, or law professors. Indeed, this is a campaign that has been led by lawyers against lawyers.

Groups like the Lincoln Project targeted law firms and launched a campaign to force lawyers to abandon Trump or his campaign as a client. This effort resulted in Twitter blocking the Lincoln Project for targeting individual Trump lawyers in a tweet (accompanied by a skull-and-crossbones emoji) that was deemed threatening and abusive. That only seemed to thrill the Lincoln Project. It reportedly joined Democrats in targeting law firms like Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur and threatening its lawyers with professional ruin. It claimed that any firm working for Trump on election litigation was part of a “dangerous attack on our democracy.” Trying to strip people of their counsel, of course, is the real attack on our democracy — and it worked: The firm buckled and withdrew, saying the pressure caused internal struggles and at least one lawyer’s resignation.

At the same time, Democratic leaders like Michigan’s Attorney General  Dana Nessel have threatened criminal prosecution against those who have posted videos alleging voting fraud and even threatened possible prosecution of legislators who meet with President Trump or raise challenges to the election results.  The media is virtually silent on these threats to coerce lawyers and legislators into silence. That is not viewed as a threat to the rule of law.  The threats against lawyers follows a pattern where Democratic members are calling for blacklists and others denounce any questioning of the Biden victory as akin to “Holocaust denial.” I spoke last week to Republican lawyers who described death threats, doxxing, and continual harassment for their representation in these lawsuits. The message is that if you represent the wrong side you will be denounced, doxxed, and disbarred.

Pascrell is not alone in calling for such bar actions as a new way to pressuring Republican lawyers, particularly after the dismissal of the Pennsylvania lawsuit a couple days ago. However, while the court offered a scathing analysis of the claims, it also found that the individual voters had “adequately pled that their votes were denied” and might be entitled to other relief. However, the court balked at the notion of negating the votes of others in response to such alleged voting errors.  That is not the type of ruling that leads to suspension, let alone disbarment. While the court slammed the Trump campaign on its legal claims, it did not impose sanctions against the lawyers. I agree with the court’s conclusion and I have been critical of claims in some of these lawsuits as facially insufficient to block certification. However, that does not mean that these voters — or their lawyers — should be barred or punished in seeking judicial review.

What Pascrell is doing is undermining our legal system by using his office to advance a campaign targeting lawyers and legislators who raise objections to his party prevailing in the presidential election. As with the Lincoln Project’s campaign, this is raw retaliation and intimidation to deter the use of our legal process. When such actions were taken against lawyers representing civil rights groups and others in the 1960s, it was correctly denounced as an outrageous abuse of our legal system. Now that Republican lawyers are being targeted, it has become a campaign supported members of Congress, thousands of lawyers, and the media.

What Pascrell is doing is a dangerous form of demagoguery that should be denounced by people of good-faith regardless of their political affiliations.

 

309 thoughts on “Democratic Member Seeks To Disbar Two Dozen Lawyers Challenging Election Results”

  1. “What Pascrell is doing is undermining our legal system by using his office to advance a campaign targeting lawyers and legislators who raise objections to his party prevailing in the presidential election.”
    *****************************
    Take a look at this guy Pascrell and tell me his likeness is not published right next to the term “bovine stupidity.” His complaints are going nowhere. In fact, I might sue him for defamation in he persists. These lawyers have a case. When he makes it public, all qualified immunities are off.

    1. Every single court has denied (with two exceptions where Trump won on very small matters) relief for these idiots. These were judges from all over the political spectrum, including some highly respected and loyal R’s. So all of these jurists are in on “The Fix”? My lord, there is no stopping the stupid of the Turleys and the cult of Trump. Trump lost! Get iver it, and make your slimey selves useful for once in your miserable lives, and try to proceed in a way that could be considered actually patriotic and in a positive way. You need to just grow up!!!

  2. “What Pascrell is doing is undermining our legal system by using his office to advance a campaign…”

    No, What Dump Trump is doing is destroying our democratic system by yelling FRAUD in a crowded election season. He is despicable. Any lawyer that stands for trump and publicly yells FRAUD, then goes into a courtroom and says…Ahhh, no, no fraud, just little old me here trying tot prop up0 a dictator.

    Sorry, that lawyer should be disbarred.

    1. Paul:

      “No, What Dump Trump is doing is destroying our democratic system by yelling FRAUD in a crowded election season. He is despicable. Any lawyer that stands for trump and publicly yells FRAUD, then goes into a courtroom and says…Ahhh, no, no fraud, just little old me here trying tot prop up0 a dictator.

      Sorry, that lawyer should be disbarred.”
      **************************************************
      Wipe that spittle off your mouth, and those flailing arms arms don’t compliment your mush brain. As for being “sorry” after those comments, you should be. Hopefully, you aren’t a lawyer or anywhere close to being one.

      Oh and pro tip for anarchists in training: if you wanna throw bombs you ought to make sure they’re lit and the lobber isn’t. Just a rule to go by — not you, of course. You’re the model of discretion and sobriety.

  3. There have been credible allegations of misconduct and those need to be investigated and the lawyers sanctioned or disbarred according to the facts and the rules. Lawyers have ethical duties as officers of the court.

      1. Pascrell cited 3.1 and 8.4(c) for Giuliani. If you’d bothered to read the complaint before spouting off, you’d know that.

        1. 3.1 involves good faith pleading which the judge in all circumstances felt the Trump lawyers had done and there was no deception to trigger 8.4(c) as every judge has held. So again what is the source for a bar complaint. Remember the judge has an obligation to report bar violations, too. They didn’t and won’t.

        2. Pascrell cited 3.1 and 8.4(c) in identical letters to the Disciplinary authorities of five States alleging the same misconduct in multiple lawsuits in four states with different facts and points of law at issue. These are not serious allegations of attorney misconduct.

  4. If this Representative is a member of the Bar in New Jersey, or anywhere else, he should be brought before them for this spurious use of his office. The Bar is no place for political differences to be played out. Mr. Pascrell must be held to task or the legal system will suffer greatly.

    Those who make excuses for this politician, should be ashamed at themselves. Is Trump hatred so great, that you would destroy the legal system? It seems so.

    1. Pascrell filing complaints doesn’t destroy the legal system. Anyone who wants can file Bar complaints, and they only result in action if the Bar investigation deems them credible and serious.

      You can file a complaint with the NJ Bar against Pascrell if you want.

      1. I think only a couple of states have sanctions for lawyers who file frivolous bar complaints. Pascrell may be filing from one of those states.

  5. The problem with people like Pascrell and others on the Left is that they seem to think they can deny the Right’s access to peaceful channels for resolving disputes or even simply communicating publicly on the matter; they assume control of the police and military forces will be enough to deal with the inevitable resort to violence that too many might take. In the words of Dirty Harry, “You have to ask yourself, ‘Do I feel lucky?’ Well … Do ya punk?”

    1. Exactly. What people like Pascrell are doing, will be dealt with extreme prejudice since there is no other option. In a sane world, there would be immediate consequences to the intimidation and threats promoted by Pascrell, the Lincoln Project, and others.

  6. Always remember that Barack Obama said the problem with the Constitution is that it tells the government what it CAN’T do.

      1. You are ever so wrong. He said it in an interview in 2001. If you were not suffering from cranial insertion into a hard to reach canal (oh, it rhymes with that) a simple search of that statement reveals that he did. Wait, that is what you are doing. Say a lie often enough and it becomes the truth.

        1. Take your own head out. A search on that shows that he said something more complex.

          In a 2001 Chicago Public Radio interview, Obama said “As radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.”

  7. The contention that the Left-Democrat partisans are have either good will or are acting in good faith is false, as demonstrated by the last 12 years of sustained bigotry against conservatives of any stripe.

  8. I recall that Rudy Giuliani filed a complaint in court regarding some state and he alleged there was voter or vote counting “fraud”. Then in court before a judge he stated “There was no fraud”. Is this true? I may have been confusing two cases.

  9. ASIA FOR THE ASIANS, AFRICA FOR THE AFRICANS, WHITE COUNTRIES FOR EVERYBODY!

    Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

    The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.

    Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

    What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

    How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?

    And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?

    But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

    They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

    Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

      1. Instead of using an ad hominem attack, try this. Take his points one by one, avoid logical fallacies, and make the case that the conclusions he has made are wrong. That is how legitimate dialogue works.

          1. Why would anyone waste time refuting a racist troll? Trolls don’t seek legitimate dialogue.

            David was correct. There are 3 paths you could have chosen; ignore the comment, respond as David pointed out, or expose your weakness and lash out with an ad hominem. Larkenson gave you plenty to work with. So what was it about the comment you believed was clearly racist?

            1. You can start with “ASIA …, AFRICA …, WHITE COUNTRIES,” which contrasts two geographic regions (Asia and Africa) with something that isn’t a geographic region and that is identified by race. What countries do you think are “white countries”? Is the U.S. a “white country,” given that it has been multiracial since its founding and that the geographic region was initially populated exclusively by non-whites?

              Why should I dignify the rest of the racist screed with an analysis? If you do not recognize that “I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem” is a racist statement, I doubt that anything I say will convince you.

              1. If you do not recognize that “I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem” is a racist statement, I doubt that anything I say will convince you.

                I recognized you didn’t even bother to try and assert a convincing argument. Now, your first paragraph is an actual rebuttal to Larkenson’s comment, so post it as a reply to Larkenson and you have the makings of a debate.

                  1. I’m not interested in debating him.

                    Then you entered a debate with him (ad hominem) unarmed and expecting to lose? Alrighty then.

                    1. LMAO that you think telling someone to FO is entering a debate.

                      Why would anyone waste time debating a racist troll? Trolls don’t seek legitimate dialogue.

                    2. LMAO that you think telling someone to FO is entering a debate.

                      These forums are virtual rooms where people gather to debate. Responding to someone in this room is no different than doing the same thing in person. If you don’t consider that entering a debate, then your ad hominem is merely trolling.

                      Try again.

    1. Anti racist isn’t code for anything other than “go away pathetic racist loser.” Why don’t you take this sad act over to Parler; maybe you’ll find an audience there. I hear it’s a very safe space.

    2. But you see, every country in Asia, whether it’s the PRC, japan, korea north or south, or Taiwan, or Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, or “Kampuchea,” all have GOVERNMENTS THAT ARE STRONGER THAN THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT

      in America, in the USA, PLUTOCRACY MAKES THE GOVERNMENT WEAK BY DESIGN. the ruling of the people by 705 billionaires is obscured by alleged “democracy”

      thus, it can be used to suppress popular national opinions, like, those of the legacy American majority, which dwindles,

      at the specific wish and design of 705 American billionaires who are all aggressively pro-immigration.

      The popular will is hamstrung and hindered, by the big money

      There is no substitute for naming and attacking the billiionaire super-caste as such

      Until Republicans do this openly, they are NOT SERIOUS

      Saloth Sar

    3. I have seen Larkenson’s mantras before. here’s the problem. the black people and migrants are not actually the ones with power, pushing to have America flooded by migrants. etc
      hence these mantras run the risk of causing people to misunderstand the deepest reality. the reality is not ideas, the reality is money
      there is a constant pervasive illusion in American history, the notion that personal opinions matter. that is false, that is the American delusion

      no, it is neither votes nor race that matters for deciding things in America, it is what the very very top big financial money decides.

      it’s 705 billionaires

      when i see a group of supposedly pro-white advocates, or, Republicans for that matter, call on attacking 705 American billionaires to save the country, and not always aiming fire at one group of their mercenaries or another, without naming them, well– then I will know someone is serious

      Who won the election? Jerome H. Powell did. If you don’t know who he is, then you are ignorant and need education

      First know, he and those who supported his tenure, they are our masters. Then go look him up.

      -saloth sar

  10. In the above article “civil rights groups” are PRIVATE entities (limited resources) usually funded by thousands of small donations combatting taxpayer funded “color of law” abuses by taxpayer funded government officials (unlimited resources).

    Case in point: former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover used taxpayer dollars to fund prostitution. Since no probable cause existed (as the 4th Amendment legally requires), Hoover hired prostitutes to call Martin Luther King Jr’s wife, Coretta Scott King. Using taxpayer dollars Hoover’s goal was not legitimate indictment or conviction of MLK, Hoover wanted to act as the “morality police” to destroy King’s marriage – at taxpayer expense. Hoover swore an oath of office not to violate anyone’s rights.

    Civil Rights groups exist when government officials illegally use their authority – acting under color of law – to violate the constitutional rights of persons on U.S. soil. In the past the U.S. Department of Justice (agency that polices “color of law abuses” at the federal level) uses “taxpayer funded” resources to bully and out spend private groups and individuals.

    This happened after 9/11. Innocent “persons of interest” (not the constitutional standard of “accused” or indicted) were destroyed by the U.S. Department of Justice using taxpayer dollars – without charge, without indictment, without judge or jury and without a guilty verdict. Private plaintiffs preyed upon by DOJ used their own PRIVATE dollars against a “team” of U.S. Attorneys with unlimited resources. Reminder: U.S. Attorneys and the Attorney General swear a supreme loyalty oath NOT to violate Americans constitutional rights – they don’t take an oath to maximize prosecutions and they don’t take an oath to cover-up color of law abuses by their own agency.

    This situation, in the above article, is not about defenseless civil rights plaintiffs using their own private money. This is about political titans using taxpayer dollars (directly or indirectly) to grab power. The same political parties that allowed torture, warrantless domestic spying, kidnapping and assassination programs. Civil rights plaintiffs are the ones harmed by some (not all) political titans that betrayed their oath of office. Not a good analogy.

  11. That’s right wise, like 2016 when Hillary conceded the next day, Obama had Trump over to the WH, Biden hosted Penfe, Michelle hosted Melania and all transition access was opened and binders prepared for an orderly hand off.

    Get your f….g baby out of the WH. We’re going to have to tent the place after Covid Don exits

    1. You seem to be forgetting the 3.5 year attempts to ignore the results of 2016 election with fake Russian hoaxes of interference/Mueller probe, B.S. impeachement attempts. You all can, to quote Whoopi, sit down, shut up and take it, if it takes a few months. The Democrats NEVER accepted the results of 2016.

      1. What they didn’t accept was Trumps right to do anything he wanted without oversight. And he eventually won with the help of the Republican party. But as they always do the Republicans kept saying the election would determine the validity of his actions. And guess what it did that. Despite increasing Republican control in state houses, the US House and possibly retaining the Senate those very same people turned him out–he lost! So maybe you should take your winnings and go home.

  12. Are there any consequences for such obviously frivolous, blatantly political, retaliatory efforts within the Bar?

    Once again, our increasingly inadequate ‘news’ organizations are silent.

    How often do we need to be reminded in the 21st century that silence is complicity.

    This is another example of obsession taking over principles or integrity.

  13. The political left really has learned from world history and are in the process of repeating what the Nazi’s did to the Jew’s in 1930’s Germany. If you don’t think so then you’re being willfully ignorant of history.

    First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Socialist.

    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Trade Unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me.
    Martin Niemöller

    If you don’t think it could happen in the United States of America then you’re either blind or naïve and both enabling the downward spiral into the abyss. The seeds were sewn in fertile soil back in 2008 and now in 2020 those seeds have grown into the immoral tactics that we’re seeing from the political left, and these tactics have becoming so socially acceptable that they are expected.

    God help us all.

    1. Steve, I think the exact same of Trumpism, but double! We could not be further apart. It will take Trump ultimately being found guilty of crimes to convince you and people like you that you were taken in by him like those saps who enrolled in the now defunct Trump University or those suckers who donated to the now shuttered Trump Charitable Foundation. As P.T. Barnum said, “There’s a sucker borne every minute.” Sad.

      1. Jeffrey Silberman wrote, “I think the exact same of Trumpism, but double!”

        Here’s the difference between the current crop controlling the political left and the current crop controlling the political right; it’s the political left that is actively trying to suppress the Constitutional rights of those they disagree with by means of intimidation and the court of public opinion (which is exactly what the Nazi’s did), the political right is actively supporting Constitutional rights for all our citizens including you Jeff if you’re a citizen.

        I swore an oath.

        Military Oath
        I, Steve Witherspoon, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

        I will uphold my oath.

        If you choose to support the growing trends of anti-Constitution, anti-American and anti-rule of law then you and I are on complete opposite ends of morality; your choices, your consequences.

        Jeffrey Silberman wrote, “It will take Trump ultimately being found guilty of crimes to convince you and people like you that you were taken in by him like those saps who enrolled in the now defunct Trump University or those suckers who donated to the now shuttered Trump Charitable Foundation.”

        I have never supported Trump, never!

        I support the United States and the Constitution, period!

        I haven’t and will never pledge allegiance to Trump or any President, here is my pledge…

        The Pledge of Allegiance
        I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

        If you can’t publicly recite the same pledge of allegiance to the United States then maybe you should leave the United States of America.

        1. Only a dishonest cherrypicker believes that about the political left and political right. An honest person understands that some on the left AND the right are actively trying to suppress the Constitutional rights of those they disagree with, and some on the left AND the right actively support Constitutional rights for all our citizens.

          1. Anonymous wrote, “Only a dishonest cherrypicker believes that about the political left and political right.”

            HOGWASH!

            Anonymous wrote, “An honest person understands”

            I am an honest person and what I wrote is my honest opinion based on my honest observations. You can disagree with my opinion if you like but for you to imply that I’m not honest is a trolling personal insult and you can bite me.

            Anonymous wrote, “some on the left AND the right are actively trying to suppress the Constitutional rights of those they disagree with, and some on the left AND the right actively support Constitutional rights for all our citizens.”

            This is a rationalization and a deflection from someone that is not willing to face their own failings.

            Now for some specifics; if I understand your opinion correctly then it’s your opinion that some on the right are trying to suppress the Constitutional rights of those they disagree with, can you provide some specific examples of that? Please don’t try to bring up the left’s absolutely unsupportable propaganda claims of voter suppression because that claim is so utterly false that citing that is now considered to be an open lie.

            1. I’ll provide some examples that some on the right are trying to suppress the Constitutional rights of those they disagree with if you commit to providing evidence that all claims of voter suppression are “absolutely unsupportable propaganda” and “utterly false”. Do you accept that deal?

              Do you also dispute that some on the left actively support Constitutional rights for all our citizens, or do you accept that?

              1. Anonymous wrote, “I’ll provide some examples that some on the right are trying to suppress the Constitutional rights of those they disagree with if you commit to providing evidence that all claims of voter suppression are “absolutely unsupportable propaganda” and “utterly false”. Do you accept that deal?”

                Uh no I don’t that deal, I’m not a damn fool. Now if you would like to bring up a few instances that you think are true and explain why you think they are true, I’m willing to discuss it. No if you want to do this then we need to be honest up front; requiring voter ID is not voter suppression; having fewer voting machines in one percent as opposed to another is not voter suppression; having fewer polling stations due to the pandemic is not voter suppression; disagreeing with mail-in voting is not voter suppression; redistricting is not voter suppression; requiring everyone to register to vote is not voter suppression; long lines at the polls is not voter suppression; simply put, just accusing others of voter suppression is not evidence that voter suppression exists.

                All that said; there may be isolated incidents where voter suppression has actually taken place, I haven’t heard of one verifiable instance. Bring it up and we’ll talk about it if you like.

                I look forward to seeing a brief list of some instances where Republican’s are trying to suppress the Constitutional rights of others.

                P.S. As I’ve told others here, I don’t visit Turley’s blog threads every day, I don’t get notifications of posted comments, or replies to my comments, so don’t expect replies, I do what I can, when I can.

                1. Amusing, but Steve did not list throwing out hundreds of thousands of votes from overwhelmingly black precincts after the election as not being voter suppression. Well, is that voter suppression Steve?

                  1. joe friday wrote, “Amusing, but Steve did not list throwing out hundreds of thousands of votes from overwhelmingly black precincts after the election as not being voter suppression. Well, is that voter suppression Steve?”

                    I’m going to entertain this particular comment from our foreign agent troll because it has relevance for others reading here.

                    Voter suppression is defined as a strategy used to influence the outcome of an election by discouraging or preventing specific groups of people from voting.

                    By definition, what you asked about is NOT voter suppression, that doesn’t imply in any way that what they did was legal or illegal, I don’t know the specifics. If a ballot is not “legal” for some reason then it should not be counted, only count the legal ballots. The consequence of not following the election laws is your vote will not be counted. It’s not the responsibility of election personnel to babysit individuals and make sure they follow election laws, that responsibility lies on the individual casting the vote.

                    Anyone on either side of the political aisle that wants an illegally cast ballot to be counted is contributing to the lawless chaos that is already permeating the United States and you and I are on completely opposite ends of legality and morality.

                    1. Steve, you are ignoring the realities of the current situation, which is the current President’s efforts to have the votes of entire precincts – predominantly black – thrown out and as justification, using alleged but unproven individual incidents of fraud. He is also trying to have the votes of entire states thrown out on the same basis. Is that voter suppression?

                      This is not fictional or about some 3rd world jungle “democracy” but about the US which you have claimed to have sworn to defend.

                2. Since you’ve rejected the deal and won’t providence evidence for your own claim, I won’t go into any detail. It’s easy to find examples, such as abortion and some LGBTQ rights. No need to respond, as I’m not interested in an exchange with someone who won’t provide evidence for his own claim and who ignores obvious voter suppression examples such as registered voters being removed from voting rolls and the Florida legislature overturning the will of its citizens by requiring felons who’ve served their sentences and completed probation to also pay fines, despite the state itself being unable to tell them how much they owe.

                  1. Anonymous wrote, “Since you’ve rejected the deal and won’t providence evidence for your own claim, I won’t go into any detail.”

                    I think it’s really clear that you didn’t read my entire comment. Try again.

                    Anonymous wrote, “It’s easy to find examples, such as abortion…”

                    You think abortion is a right? Think again. Just because something is not illegal in some circumstances does not mean it’s a right.

                    Anonymous wrote, “It’s easy to find examples, such as… LGBTQ rights”

                    Be specific. I completely agree that there are plenty of anti-LGBTQ bigots out there on both sides of the political aisle.

                    No if you want to get specific and talk about marriage you’re only half right. “Marriage” is a specific thing that takes place in a religious context; however, the choice of two consenting adults to join in a union is a binding legal civil contract between those two consenting adults and in the eyes of the law this must be applied equally and is different than a “marriage” even though the civil contract is called a “marriage” – this naming convention needs to change outside the church. Marriage is a combination of that legal contract and a covenant with God, what happens outside the church and is not consecrated by the church is not a “marriage”, it’s only the legal civil contract half of the union between two people. “Marriage” is not a right, the legal civil contract half is law and as such must be applied equally, period; this is the opinion of all my LGBTQ friends including some of my family members that have such civil contracts. This error in legal equality is being corrected across the USA, the anti-LGBTQ bigotry from both sides is something that will linger.

                    Anonymous wrote, “No need to respond, as I’m not interested in an exchange with someone who won’t provide evidence for his own claim…”

                    Not interested in an exchange yet here you are writing things to further the conversation.

                    Again; I’m not a damn fool to agree to your unachievable deal since I cannot possibly know of all the claims, I spoke of the “unsupportable propaganda claims” not specifics. For instance, as far as I can tell everything that has come out of Stacey Abrams mouth regarding voter suppression is innuendo based propaganda and it’s all unsupportable. I even wrote, “there may be isolated incidents where voter suppression has actually taken place, I haven’t heard of one verifiable instance. Bring it up and we’ll talk about it if you like”, but go ahead and ignore what I actually wrote.

                    Anonymous wrote, “…who ignores obvious voter suppression examples such as registered voters being removed from voting rolls”

                    Voters being removed from voting rolls is NOT voter suppression, all they have to do is reregister. I’ve had to reregister many times since the mid 1970’s. What’s the issue, you register, you get to vote. The states have rules about how long a registration can exist in the voter roles when the voter doesn’t cast any ballots. The state has rules that people who have died can’t remain on voter rolls. The state has rules that people who have moved shouldn’t remain on voter rolls and must reregister based on their new address. There are rules and people are expected to adhere to those rules.

                    Voter suppression is defined as a strategy used to influence the outcome of an election by discouraging or preventing specific groups of people from voting.

                    In our small town we went from three polling stations down to one because they couldn’t get enough poll workers to work three polling stations due to COVID-19. There were a few ignorant Democratic Party boneheads that irrationally said that that was voter suppression because they couldn’t go to their usual polling station and would have to wait in a line; these claims were absolutely absurd, there is less than a mile between the polling stations and the picked the most centrally located polling station for the election plus absolutely every one of these whining fools could apply for an absentee ballot and not leave the comfort of their own homes to vote. The point is that just because partisan dumbasses make claims that their vote is being suppressed doesn’t make it fact.

                    Anonymous wrote, “the Florida legislature overturning the will of its citizens by requiring felons who’ve served their sentences and completed probation to also pay fines, despite the state itself being unable to tell them how much they owe.”

                    The elected legislature makes the law, not the citizens. This is a legal issue with the legislature and the justice system in that state and is NOT voter suppression.

                    1. “conservative Republicans are the world’s worst losers”
                      After 4 years of #Resistance, much of it by illegal means and leaks of classified information, you can say that with a straight face? The left has been trying to overthrow a duly elected president for 4 years by any means necessary. They lied on 4 FISA warrant applications, saying they believed Carter Page was a Russian spy when they knew he wasn’t, or at least could have easily found out he wasn’t but didn’t bother to. They used the FISA warrants to place electronic surveillance on the Trump campaign, a banana republic move. After Adam Schiff telling everyone that he’d seen concrete evidence of Trump’s cooperation with Russia, recent declassification of the evidence showed concrete evidence Schiff was lying repeatedly for years. Pelosi’s impeachment was a joke, with nothing but inadmissible hearsay evidence, during the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. When Trump canceled travel to China, Pelosi toured Chinatown and denounced Trump as a racist.

                      Democrats are full of Schiff.

                    2. The Senate Report was watered down by RINOs, and has no credibility with me. Horowitz is a Democrat holdover from the Obama Administration.

                    1. “Shall I look up the Republican Senate Report on Russian Interference in the 2016 election for you??”

                      Nice smear by innuendo.

                      You’re conflating Russian interference and Trump collusion.

        2. It is my biggest question. Which way will the military choose in a civil war? BTW, I also took the oath, it means something to me, and I voted twice for President Trump.

          1. Anonymous asked, “Which way will the military choose in a civil war?”

            That’s an easy question.

            There is a reason that the first clause of the military oath is “I (State Your Name) do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic” this is the determinate clause of the oath, all that follows in the oath must support that singular clause and orders that violate the United States Constitution or the Geneva Convention are illegal orders; therefore, the military must go with the side that is supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States of America and oppose that which is anti-Constitution, period!

            Anyone that is anti United States Constitution is literally an “enemy” of the people and therefore an enemy of the United States military, regardless if they are foreign or domestic.

            Does that answer your question?

            1. What if the president gives an illegal order? Do you follow it? Who decides if it is legal? etc. etc. The problem you have is not your oath, its that you seem to think that these types of decisions are easy to make because the demarcation is obvious. I find may of the choices made by the US–the government as our representative–reprehensible, eg. Vietnam, redlining, response to Covid-9 etc. etc.

            2. No, Steve it doesn’t answer the question. Given the President is currently trying to overthrow the results of an election by pressuring state legislators and canvassing boards, the GOP Senate purposefully failed it’s duty to advise and consent on a Presidential appointment to the court, the current President did an end run around the Congressional power of the purse, and has ignored Congressional subpoenas, I can only assume you mean NOT TRUMP.

              But lets agree that the pledge is less than clear and people bat around accusations of opponents being “against the constitution” all the time. Fortunately we live in a democracy who’s institutions continue to stand, even during the presidency of cult figure like Trump.

        3. Steve Witherspoon, thanks for taking the time to reply to me though I doubt you will see this reply. Suffice it to say, I think we could reach some common ground if we had time to hash out our positions more thoroughly given the fact that you are not a Trumpist. Because I don’t waste my time arguing with Trumpists anymore than I would waste my time arguing with the members of Heaven’s Gate, the Branch Davidians, etc. The sad fact is that people of faith will not believe what they refuse to know. When they believe that they have god on their side, I have lost the argument before it even begins! Trumpism is akin to a cult because if any member speaks out of line as did Tucker Carlson when he criticized the nutcase Sidney Powell, he was attacked by the Trumpists for his heresy.

          1. Anonymous wrote, “Steve Witherspoon, thanks for taking the time to reply to me though I doubt you will see this reply.”

            Due to the way this reply nested and the fact that there are multiple people posting comments under the moniker Anonymous I’m not sure which comment your are referring to but you’re welcome.

            Anonymous wrote, “Suffice it to say, I think we could reach some common ground if we had time to hash out our positions more thoroughly…”

            I think that’s true of almost anyone. I firmly believe the words in this photo that I created a few years ago.

            Anonymous wrote, “Because I don’t waste my time arguing with Trumpists anymore than I would waste my time arguing with the members of Heaven’s Gate, the Branch Davidians, etc. The sad fact is that people of faith will not believe what they refuse to know. When they believe that they have god on their side, I have lost the argument before it even begins! Trumpism is akin to a cult”

            That’s akin to bigotry.

            Anonymous wrote, “Trumpism is akin to a cult because if any member speaks out of line as did Tucker Carlson when he criticized the nutcase Sidney Powell, he was attacked by the Trumpists for his heresy.”

            One instance doesn’t create a pattern; however, there are so many instances of the political left eating their own that it seems to be a core belief that the opinion of the left’s hive mind is the only acceptable opinion. Some recent prominent examples of this are the attacks on life long Liberals Jonathan Turley, Alan Dershowitz, Kirsten Powers and Juan William just to name a few. I have life long Liberal friends that have been called Conservatives, racist and there have been attempts to socially cancel a few simply because they disagreed with the hive mind’s propaganda. The cultish problem we have in the USA these days is the massive cancerous infection of “progressive” irrational social justice warriors not a few Conservatives that rhetorically “attacked” Tucker Carlson because he spoke his mind. This canceling and eating their own is a long term 21st century tactic of the political left, it’s a new copy-cat thing for the right.

        1. If Trump goes to prison, it will only be after a jury trial. If you start a civil war over the results of a jury trial, you’re a traitor.

          1. those who win civil wars, get to define who’s the traitor

            benedict arnold was a hero to the English Crown

            it’s all a matter of perspective when things kick off

      2. Make sure you leave out the hundreds of thousands basement dwellers educated by our higher education system. Wonder why they haven’t been looked at as hard as anything with President Trump’s name on it?

    2. Someone get water for Steve. He’s feinted from the vapors. The sight of those Yankees in Atlanta and the darkies running free was too much for him.

      1. NOTICE TO EVERYONE ON THIS BLOG!

        FYI: Read this.

        Joe Friday, your gig is up and you have been exposed.

        You all can choose to openly engage with this Joe Friday, who is likely a foreign agent, if you like; as for me there will be no conversations just a rhetorical hammer beating down a foreign agent troll.

  14. Isn’t real issue: who pays for the lawsuits? Is it taxpayer money or private money? Using taxpayer money to fund legitimately frivolous lawsuits, by the nation’s top lawyers, would be legal malpractice.

  15. What did you expect from classless cretins like Pascrell? What the Left should be doing is joining with Republicans to address the voter “irregularities” that have been uncovered and to investigate those that have been alleged.

    1. Lying to the court is a breach of the ethical rules. Many of the lawyers representing Trump have filed false and fabricated materials with the court. Such conduct is an appropriate basis for a bar complaint!

        1. Cases have been filed in multiple states, and some have the Trump Campaign as the plaintiff, including the federal case in PA.

    2. I don’t begrudge Turley advocating that Trump should appeal to the courts. That is why they are there. But Turley is ignoring the obvious, namely, that Trump is NOT acting in good faith with all his tweets claiming that the entire election is corrupt. Everyone realizes his overriding purpose is to undercut the legitimacy of the Biden presidency as payback for the Mueller investigation. Jonathan knows this, of course, but he dare not acknowledge it as a Fox contributor. Rather, he confines his comments as a mere legal analyst critiquing the merits of Trump’s lawyers’ fruitless lawsuits but refrains from passing his *moral* judgment on Trump’s overall assault on our election system yet spares no moral outrage at the attacks against Trump’s lawyers by some very misguided Democrats.

    3. The problem is that the same thing happened with Kerry in 2004.

      The loser jumps on the bandwagon of either voter fraud/mistake or election fraud/mistake. These two types of election contests are not the same. Very seldom is the first capable of making a provable claim that the fraud/mistake put the outcome in doubt. The second kind, if a provable claim is made, can often put the outcome in doubt.

      At any rate, the loser now gets election integrity religion, but only until the next election.

  16. JT: “What Pascrell is doing is a dangerous form of demagoguery that should be denounced by people of good-faith regardless of their political affiliations.”

    When you exhibit this kind of moral umbrage against Trump and his enablers for their undermining the institutional norms and fundamental values upon which this great country has fostered and relied, I will agree with your critique of the what some Democrats are doing. Though perhaps we should recall Goldwater’s time-honored Conservative admonition that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Trumpism is undeniably the greatest demagogic threat to this country in a long time. History will so judge. You can bet on it.

    1. +10 Jeffery.

      Turley has zero standing to comment on dangerous demagoguery as he allows it to pass without comment from the WH virtually every day. He doesn’t care about dangerous demagoguery, he cares about carrying water for Trump and staying on Fox.

    2. “The Democrats always win” is neither an institutional norm nor a fundamental value of the United States of America.

  17. After four years of describing the least action by Trump and his administration as ‘fascist’, etc., we now are seeing just who the real fascists in America are. This can’t continue, but I fear that resolving the situation will ultimately entail a second civil war if the left doesn’t start acting rationally.

    1. Go start a civil war in Alberta Canuck. We have a democracy in America and when you lose an election you suck it up like a man and get ready for the next.

        1. How is 2016 comparable? Clinton conceded. The GSA ascertained that Trump was the apparent winner. The Obama Administration worked with Trump to ensure a smooth transition on the issues facing the country. AND there were no court challenges designed to overturn the results or undermine the integrity of our election processes.

          1. They started a recount effort in Michigan by Jill Stein (financed by leftist money)and stopped it immediately after discovering that most Detroit precincts had recorded between 200% and 600% as many votes as voters. The steal was on in 2016 as well but it wasn’t well enough organized to overcome Trump’s monster vote. By the time the machine noticed the tseunamy, it was too late. Trump didn’t cheat. All the machinery was in the hands of corrupt Democrat and Republican officials that he had defeated. Everything since has been a bi-partisan effort to contain the outsider in office. That is why every senator has consented unanimously to symbolic sessions to prevent Trump from having recess appointments.

          2. There’s a difference between a “peaceful transition” of the Office and a “peaceful transition” of the power of the Office. Clinton conceded and Obama appeared at Trump’s inauguration having already seeded the ground of the Office with obstacles to Trump’s exercise of the powers of the Presidency and a confected Special Counsel investigation waiting as a pretext to remove Trump from the Office.

            1. Please stop that. Obama invited Trump to the White House immediately and had a professional transition team, but the Trumpistas did not want to hear it. Then, they had to call others to find out how to turn on the lights!!

            2. Obama had nothing to do with the Special Counsel investigation. Rod Rosenstein, a Republican nominated by Trump to be the Deputy A.G., decided to appoint Mueller after Trump fired Comey and then Comey claimed that Trump had asked him to “let go” of the investigation of Flynn. Trump and Pence both declared that Flynn had lied to Pence.

    2. Lock and load. These are communists we’re talking about, plain and simple. We’ve fought foreign enemies. We’ve ignored the domestic for far too long.

Leave a Reply